Bentirran, I think you think you know what you're talking about, but I suspect that you don't, from many of your arguments.

"If there was historically no 2nd Amendment, there would be no RKBA and therefore there would be no guns and therefore there would be no gun-related violence".
Try it this way: If there hadn't been an English king who thought England could subject the colonies to whatever control, taxes and whims he and his lackeys could invent, Americans might not have included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. We might not have the attitude that we could/should all have guns. The way I see it, it's all England's fault we have guns.

"Criminals should in theory not have access to any guns."
In Fantasyland, maybe not, but have criminals in England turned all their guns in at your government's request? Please tell us how you did it!

"Where do they get their guns?"
The same place yours do: they steal them or, more likely, get them from their criminal friends. England has had a long history of smuggling... and probably still does, although rum probably isn't the cargo.

"Why do criminals use guns anyway?"
Because if all their victim has is a stick or a rock, they have the advantage.

"Do criminals who have guns who kill law abiding citizen under the same circumstances still remain criminals?"
I'm assuming that you're meaning something like if a rapist is attacked by his 10-yr-old victim's crazed but otherwise normal father, and the criminal shoots him in self-defense. Well, since he wasn't supposed to have a gun to begin with, and he instigated the situation with the rape, YES, he's still a criminal. Of course, the father has also committed a crime.

"If there were no guns in America and there were no criminals and no fear of criminals exactly how many would this put out of work?"
If there were no weapons in England, and there were no criminals, and no fear of criminals, would an English person still have a tax rate of 40% on £35,000? England could have stopped the bloodshed in Belfast with one act, but it hasn't, has it? Is it the money, the power, or the mere possession?

"...there are literally thousands of other US citizens who have died or have been seriously wounded every year because they lack safety training in the use of firearms."
Yes, and with cars, too. And England?

"...the balance of power of the internal constitutional politics within the United States tips either one way or the other then a blood bath will quickly follow. It has happened once before..."
England has had two civil wars, hasn't it?

"... the United States of America does not need an armed militia to protect itself from enemies foreign, it has its professional armed services."
The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the U.S. is a guy called President Bush. Was your comment intended to me us feel safe? It doesn't.

You seem to think that all the guns in America suddenly appeared overnight, and could disappear the same way. And all crime would go with it. Are you living in Brigadoon or somewhere? Crime existed well before guns, and will continue to do so, here and in England.

On the other hand... England has few guns, probably less ammunition, and a small military. America has a lot of guns, a lot of ammo, and a pretty strong military... hmmmmm......

Sue

You might want to keep this in mind, just in case you ever have to shoot a bad guy, and end up in front of a jury (and you will, either criminal or civil)...you shot to STOP the bad guy from hurting people, not to KILL him. The fact that he might have died makes no difference. As more than one smart law enforcement officer has said, "...shoot to end violence, not to kill..."

Claiming that handguns are only "for killing people" is wrong, but even if it wasn't, so what? I know it is unfashionable in certain circles to take responsibility for one's own defense. We are presumably expected to leave such matters in the hands of the government. This attitude is apparently even more pervasive across the pond, where self defense, particularly with a weapon of any sort, is frequently considered a criminal act. I sincerely hope we are not headed in the direction of Scotland, where they are--I kid you not--about to ban most swords in the vain hope that it will somehow make them safer.

You are absolutely right about not wanting to own a gun without the proper training, and the mindset to use it. But I'll bet you'll be surprised at just how much fun shooting can be. Get somebody you know with a .22 rifle or pistol who is proficient to take you to the range. Or have your CCW instructor do it. Unless I miss my guess you'll be hooked.

Scotland a model for defending yourself.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock6.html

That's brilliant! Thanks for the link!

SAF APPLAUDS NEW KATES-MAUSER REPORT ON FIREARMS AND CRIME
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives.

Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.”

“The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “What these two seasoned researchers have revealed is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun laws. It seems hardly a coincidence that here in America, the highest crime rates are in places with strict gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. However, in areas here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership violent crime rates are lower.

“The authors note an earlier study by Kates that showed a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, while overall gun ownership increased 103 percent and handgun ownership went up 163 percent,” he continued. “Yet during that period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.”

Gottlieb said the timing of this report’s release in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is significant due to the renewal of the gun control debate following the recent events at Virginia Tech.

“Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against all the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd,” Gottlieb stated. “While their research will obviously not close the debate, they’ve made a strong case against the traditional anti-gun mantra. Gun ownership is not the problem, and this new report proves it.”

Yeppers, you made the point I try to pound home to people. Thanks OBG.

Remember, you don't even have to hit the guy, you just have to make him run away or stop. That is your one and only goal. If I can make the guy stop without even firing a shot, so much the better.

Are you referring to before or after the freak is in custody?

If before, said freak is either committing his crime or attempting to escape. Preventing a felony, stopping a felon defense of a family member- all there are legal grounds for the used of potentially lethal force.

And if after, any judge who would find against the father should have his gavel taken away from him.

You're right, I was. My in-laws go "plinking" on the grounds of their country house and I fired a .22 rifle at some cans. It really was pretty exhilariating, like catching my first fish. Now I know why people can get addicted to activities like that. I will probably be less timid about handguns when I start shooting with those, if rifle shooting was any indication.

The DA that even files the case had better be ready for a rough ride the next election.